trellis-break-loop

Analyze fixed bugs to categorize root causes and generate prevention plans.

92|8|Updated May 15, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/LonelyHerbivore/Trellis-Herbivore --skill trellis-break-loop
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: trellis-break-loop
Source: https://github.com/LonelyHerbivore/Trellis-Herbivore/tree/main/.cursor/skills/trellis-break-loop
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/LonelyHerbivore/Trellis-Herbivore --skill trellis-break-loop

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It helps teams stop the fix-forget-repeat cycle by performing deep, structured analysis after a bug is resolved so the real root cause and prevention strategy are captured into the repository.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Root cause categorization (A–E): Classifies the bug into missing spec, cross-layer contract failure, change propagation failure, test coverage gap, or implicit assumption to target the correct remediation.
  • Failure mode review: Explains why earlier fixes did not stick (surface fix, incomplete scope, tool limitation, or mental model mismatch) when multiple attempts were required.
  • Prevention mechanism design: Converts insights into durable defenses such as documentation updates, architectural constraints, compile-time/runtime safeguards, stronger tests, and review checklists.
  • Knowledge capture into Trellis artifacts: Produces concrete next steps to update .trellis/spec/ guides/docs and create tickets for follow-through.

Quick Start

After you finish fixing a bug, run the trellis-break-loop workflow and analyze the root cause, why prior fixes failed (if any), and the specific spec/test/review updates needed to prevent the same class of bugs.

Frequently Asked Questions about trellis-break-loop

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I perform root cause analysis after fixing a bug to stop recurring issues?

Root cause analysis after debugging categorizes the failure into missing specs, cross-layer contract drift, or test coverage gaps, then converts these insights into durable prevention mechanisms like documentation updates and stronger tests.

What is the best way to document implicit assumptions and update specs after resolving a bug?

Updating specs after a bug fix involves capturing undocumented assumptions into repository artifacts, specifically by modifying `.trellis/spec/` guides and creating follow-through tickets to ensure architectural constraints are maintained.

Why do my bug fixes fail to stick and how can I prevent repeating the same debugging cycle?

Fixes fail due to surface patching, incomplete scope, or mental model mismatches; preventing the fix-forget-repeat cycle requires designing compile-time safeguards, expanding test coverage, and generating review checklists.

How do I categorize root causes for cross-layer contract failures and change propagation gaps?

Categorizing root causes classifies bugs into types A through E—missing spec, cross-layer contract failure, change propagation failure, test coverage gap, or implicit assumption—to target the correct remediation strategy.

Does this root cause analysis workflow require any specific testing frameworks or dependencies?

No external dependencies are required; the workflow operates independently to analyze debugging success and output actionable prevention plans, relying solely on your existing repository artifacts and spec structure.

What are the limitations of relying on root cause categorization for process improvement?

Root cause categorization focuses on post-fix learning and spec updates rather than active debugging; it cannot prevent bugs in real-time and requires disciplined follow-through on generated tickets to ensure lasting process improvement.